INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#226 GddZ
Will for peace and mediation in the face of belligerent and aggressive power politics
What can peace mediation and diplomatic efforts achieve?
In conversation with Jan-Uwe Pettke
Cybersecurity expert, manager at CrowdStrike and retired officer of the German Armed Forces.
Contents
Chapter:
0:05 – Welcome to the podcast
2:01 – Jan-Uwe Pettke and his experiences
4:14 – The importance of peace mediation
6:17 – Turning point of the Russian war
9:06 – Mediation is not a panacea
12:29 – The change in international politics
16:01 – The challenges of peace mediation
21:54 – Putin's rational decisions
25:13 – The will to peace
30:29 – Germany's role in mediation
32:59 – Conclusion and outlook
Summary of content
In this episode, we discuss the role of peace mediation in an increasingly complex security environment with Jan-Uwe Pettke, a cyber security manager at a leading American IT security company and a retired German army officer. We will talk about current conflicts and the challenges that confront mediators, especially in the context of the current war in Ukraine and geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe.
Together we will explore the definition and objectives of peace mediation, which is often seen as an indispensable tool in conflict management. Jan-Uwe provides his unique perspective as someone who is not directly involved in mediation but has extensive experience in the context of military operations and security issues. He reflects on historical successes and failures of peace negotiations and notes that the basic conditions for successful mediation are often not in place when one party to a conflict, as in the case of Russia, is unwilling to engage in serious negotiations.
A central theme in our conversation is the realisation that peace mediation cannot be seen as a panacea for conflicts. We discuss how the will for peace, which is sought by many, can be utilised in practice, especially in politically complicated situations. Jan-Uwe raises concerns about the influence of ideologies and political interests on the way mediation processes are perceived and implemented. It is also mentioned that a strong and united Europe is necessary to play an active role in conflict resolution and thus to take a neutral stance that gives room for possible negotiations.
We also discuss the importance of understanding the dynamics between the conflicting parties and accepting that mediation is often called for when the real conditions and intentions of the parties involved do not match the conflict resolution process. Jan-Uwe emphasises that mediators need to recognise the real power relationships and the wills of the parties in order to be effective in their role.
To summarise, the discussion provides an in-depth analysis of the role of mediators in current conflict scenarios and highlights the need to develop a realistic perspective on the possibilities and limitations of mediation. We also discuss the responsibility of the international community to coordinate diplomatic efforts and present a common, strong European position to address the current security challenges. This episode provides in-depth insights into the interconnected issues of security policy, mediation and international diplomacy in turbulent times.
Complete transcription
[0:00]As I said, I think the first thing that can be exploited,
[0:05]
Welcome to the podcast
[0:03]is per se the will to peace.
[0:05]So that's a laudatory, crazy goal, which is something that everyone actually pursues and desires. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Yes, and this episode will deal with current events and socio-political issues that also concern us mediators, and not only peace mediators who deal with wars and peace initiatives in this area of major political weather conditions, but also we mediators as a whole in our professionalism, in our self-image, are challenged here or at least addressed and can and should deal with them. And for this reason, I will continue this small series within this podcast to make these things a topic. And it is also unusual for me to deal with these topics, so to speak, and I have invited a very competent person to this programme who is not directly a mediator.
[1:28]But it has a lot to do with the topic of war and peace. Welcome to your podcast studio, Jan-Uwe Pettke. Hello, thank you very much, Dr Weigel.
[1:40]Mr Pettke, perhaps to start with, and I was addressing you as a non-mediator and I hope that I haven't offended you too much, because I can't be completely sure. But I know that you are of course involved in this topic. Perhaps to start with, who are you, what do you do and what is your connection to the topic?
[2:01]
Jan-Uwe Pettke and his experiences
[2:02]Yes, I work for a large American IT security company in the area of threat intelligence, so I deal with all these security and threat issues in the cyber information room. Before that, I worked for the IT system of the German Armed Forces, worked in management consulting for a few years and finally started my professional career. I started in the Bundeswehr as a soldier and then later as a conscript and then later as an officer candidate and officer. And I think this topic brings you very much into contact with the whole issue of war and peace.
[2:41]I studied history and social sciences, with a minor in constitutional and international law. So I was a bit, shall I say, academically driven in this subject area. Yes, I was also deployed twice in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer. And I think it is also against this background that I keep coming into contact with the topic of mediation or peace mediation. And it has to be said quite simply that ultimately the conflict in Afghanistan certainly came to an end through some kind of peace mediation. And as a former veteran, I am of course also interested in this topic and have of course also followed how this chapter of German foreign, security and defence policy came to an end and how it has now been partially dealt with in the Defence Committee or in the Bundestag. Yes, and these competences that you have now recorded again, both the practical experiences and the academic background, that quickly became clear to me in the conversations, in the comments that we had exchanged and I thought it would be really good not to have mediators in the narrower sense, who always have such a self-image in this topic, to speak here in the podcast.
[3:55]It is too much to say that you are a security and peace politician, but rather a security officer and someone who is interested and familiar with the subject area. Perhaps it's a good time to enquire about mediation,
[4:14]
The importance of peace mediation
[4:10]how you look at it, from the outside in inverted commas. What does peace mediation mean to you when it comes to security and war is the context?
[4:24]Yes, it really is a very difficult topic. So I don't think there is a clear and unambiguous statement on this. I have already mentioned that there are historical examples or current examples where the whole issue of peace federation played a role and was also successful. On the other hand, there are of course also currents, endeavours, especially now with regard to the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine or now also with the latest Israeli attacks on Iran, where there are of course also people who are very hasty in calling for peace and diplomacy and actually don't even look at what the real conditions look like. So I believe that in this area of tension between it being an important political instrument, also for peace policy, to the point that it is also politically instrumentalised for goals or interests that may actually have nothing at all to do with the countries that are affected. So in the discussion about what Ukraine should do, there are countless voices and of course there is also a camp that, I don't know if it's peace mediation, but from the peace movement, let's put it this way, there are general demands that I personally find very problematic, because we in Germany should hold back.
[5:49]A President Zelensky and all the experts, both military and intelligence services and everything else involved, are more competent. In the assessment of the situation and then also in the judgement of the measures that have to be taken. Yes, we also have these different layers of very practical considerations, i.e. who knows what in concrete terms, and fundamental considerations,
[6:17]
Turning point of the Russian war
[6:13]which is the better instrument and then it very quickly becomes ideological. Perhaps we should take a look at the thesis that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is a turning point, also for the assessment of mediation as an instrument. What can we say so far?
[6:34]Peace mediation was a crucially important instrument for German foreign policy. It has made enormous efforts to establish Germany as a mediator in the world, including efforts to secure peace there or at least to further extend the state of non-war. These are all political minefields that we are touching on here. In your view, what has peace mediation been able to achieve so far? And then perhaps we can return to this turning point of the Russian war of aggression.
[7:10]Yes, as I said, I have already mentioned examples. Afghanistan, I also believe that the conflicts in the Balkans have also been resolved in part or with the help of peace mediation. And it has to be said quite honestly, despite all the problems that still exist between the different peoples in the Balkans today, this is also a success story. But I think you simply have to understand fundamentally, and of course you also have to ask yourself if this is a turning point, that there are always times when peace mediation perhaps plays a subordinate role. I think it's also a question of understanding at what point in a conflict peace mediation actually makes sense. And as I said, I think there are enough historical examples where military conflicts between states have been mediated, but also other foreign policy conflicts over borders or how to use transnational waters. All of these issues have been resolved over the last 100 or 200 years through various mediation formats and have of course also contributed to peaceful coexistence in the long term.
[8:25]So this also means that it is not only necessary to refer to Camp David in the 1980s and early 1980s - and this is something that is repeatedly brought up in mediation circles - that mediation was effective in conflicts between states and was also successful. And that doesn't mean that there was always absolute peace afterwards and that everyone was happy, but simply that further escalation could be prevented at the mediation table and a settlement could be reached. So this is also your view from the outside, looking at security, at security developments between states. Firstly, a reliable observation.
[9:06]
Mediation is not a panacea
[9:07]Absolutely. I think that one important thing to consider here is that peace mediation per se is not a panacea. So when we talk about Camp David and the 1980s, I think you have to be fair and say that an important part is also the…
[9:25]The economic policy and economic power within the Western states, the NATO states, which then also enabled a certain arms race, and this is where we come into the military sphere. And so ultimately, through various dimensions, if you want to put it that way, i.e. diplomacy as a format for peace mediation, the military dimension as well as the economic dimension, the Soviet Union could be killed off in inverted commas and then brought to a point where mediation could actually have an even stronger influence. Then, of course, there was the development in Central and Eastern Europe, Solidarity or similar developments, which of course also contributed. And yes, in the end, from a Western perspective, it was very successful and actually continued the peace phase until 2014 or 2022, however you want to look at it. If you look at this phase, from the 1980s and then up to the present day, there is this idea, and I would like to talk to you about this, so to speak, that there is a separation, so to speak, between those willing and ready for war and those willing and ready for dialogue.
[10:42]And a change would have taken place, in the 80s we proved that this is also possible at the discussion table and now we have to continue this course of history, so to speak, and leave the age of war behind us, so to speak. And then comes the big disappointment in 2014, 2022, depending on where you look. But what do you think of this narrative that there is, so to speak, a replacement for the conflicts carried out with weapons and that efforts that are ready for dialogue or at least mediation are now gaining the upper hand?
[11:20]Or have they won? Yes, I don't really believe that either. So I think what is relevant here is simply that a global player, the counterweight to the USA or the Western powers, i.e. Russia, the Soviet Union, was temporarily absent. People believed in the end of history and similar theories, and then for a long time there was no global player to challenge the USA. People then turned to measures such as peace enforcement or peace support operations, whether in Africa or the Balkans. And then came the whole issue of the global fight against terrorism, international terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then these issues were dealt with, and of course mediation was repeatedly attempted. But in the end, we saw how long the conflicts lasted. And then you have this, let's say, global context,
[12:29]
The change in international politics
[12:25]I think we lost sight of this intergovernmental context a little. And as I said, we believed it for a long time. And you can also see it in the example of the Bundeswehr, how it has been cut to the bone according to the motto, we are now focusing the Bundeswehr on international crisis management missions and can forget the whole issue of national and alliance defence.
[12:46]And yes, these are all indications or signs that people wanted to believe at a political level and took measures accordingly. And then I think at some point people forgot to keep an eye on this whole issue. And then finally, on the one hand, China slowly rose in South East Asia, where people thought that change and trade could bring about something. And then finally, with the inauguration of Xi Jinping, a lot of things changed again, who then set a different political course for China and was then increasingly confrontational.
[13:27]And at the same time, with Russia and the first attack on the 2.24, we saw that Russia also wants to take much more aggressive measures in order to assert its political interests. So you could actually see it beforehand, if you were honest, and Ukraine is not the first example of this. You can look at Chechnya, you can look at Georgia, Holdau. There have also been other examples that have actually foreshadowed this Russian development, but the West has of course ignored these drawings due to other interests. That would mean, or if I have understood correctly, that this application, the one-sidedness in world power politics with the USA as the undisputed policeman, ruler or most powerful state has created a context that could support this assumption.
[14:22]We are now on the road to peace, but the fact that this was simply a fading out of very important developments and framework conditions. I find that interesting, because there is a similar parallel in a completely different area, which is also important in mediation scenes, for example, that the number of lawsuits filed in court fell incredibly sharply in the noughties and tens, that the volume of court cases was minimised by up to 40 per cent, so to speak. But these conflicts that were no longer taken to court, were not brought to mediators, but arose elsewhere. So it was actually a phase where mediation was able to flourish under the general conditions, but unfortunately had no influence on it and didn't benefit from it either. The parallel comes to mind again. But that actually means, to get back to the topic, that was a rude awakening or that will be an awakening in 2014 at best or 2022 at the latest.
[15:25]Perhaps because it was also more recent, with a great deal of diplomatic endeavour on the part of Western Europe beforehand. Anyone who didn't travel to Moscow at least shared in the excitement when the statesmen took their seats at the long table. But none of it had any effect. The big attack on Ukraine was then carried out. What is your assessment? Where does peace mediation end up in the face of this aggressive power politics?
[16:01]
The challenges of peace mediation
[16:01]In their self-image, but also in their effectiveness. Hey, you who are listening to this podcast, if you like it, why don't you press five stars and leave feedback so that others who haven't yet listened to or found the podcast can do so too. And now we continue with the episode in the podcast, well through time.
[16:26]Yes, I personally believe that nothing has really changed. In the end, and I think we need to talk about the basics of mediation again, you are certainly much more experienced than I am, but my understanding of mediation is that, firstly, both parties or all parties involved go to mediation voluntarily and then also help to support this process and in the end also support the decision from the mediation and then also implement it. And a week ago, I think, Dr Bruno Kahl, the outgoing President of the Federal Intelligence Service, gave what I thought was a very impressive interview. I can't remember a president of the Federal Intelligence Service ever making such a clear statement before. And he said quite clearly that, from an intelligence point of view, Putin is in no way prepared to negotiate or make concessions. And I simply believe that.
[17:29]And you can see from this that it simply cries out at these foundations. So we have a party to the conflict or the leader of a party to the conflict saying that we don't accept the rules of the game. And I think that's the big issue in mediation. If there is someone in the conflict who doesn't want to take part, doesn't want to play along, doesn't accept it, then you simply have no means of forcing them to take part. I think you simply have to accept that again or perhaps play it back into the understanding of peace mediation and say, people, you certainly have a right to exist, nobody wants to deny that, but we have to be honest and say that you can't do anything at this point in this conflict. You have to wait and see what happens and then see what frustrates these people, who certainly have the best interests at heart and are also keen on this process.
[18:23]Shaping and advancing the process, which, as I said, is very honourable, but you just have to understand that it's not possible right now. A large part of the work of mediators, and this is probably all the more important for peace mediation, consists of enquiring about the conditions and making it possible for the parties to sit down at the negotiating table. In other words, if you want to be a little disrespectful, to negotiate the conflict parties into mediation. And mediators often see themselves as mediators, in fact they are negotiating partners who would like to be. And it sometimes seems to me that the boundaries become blurred as to how much the desire for mediation then also allows for activities and then also compromises, or even the focus and perception. And certainly, from a very sober point of view, discussions with conflict parties and framework conditions are needed for them to sit down at the negotiating table. Sometimes it seems to me, and I would be interested in your opinion and your view of this from the outside, that the.
[19:31]mediators are prepared to believe that they can negotiate a willingness to mediate. And that as long as this is not yet the case, not everything has been done and not everything has been tried. As if, and this is the thesis underneath, everyone should in principle be prepared to rationally find the best way out of the conflict and that, personalised here with Putin, is simply a false assumption.
[20:01]Yes, I think there are two facets to this. I think the first facet is, what is rational for Putin? And I believe that for a peace mediator from Germany or Western Europe, other things are or appear rational than for Vladimir Putin. And personally, I believe that he has now manoeuvred himself into a position politically, in terms of external security policy, and that he can't get out of it at all. So what should he do now? A peace negotiation? Sorry, that was already the narrative two days after the attack. We now have to make sure that he gets out of this with his face saved. Yes, but he himself has created a system that is also extremely violent. If you look at what has happened in the last three or four years, high-ranking officials, military officers and business leaders have fallen out of windows and off balconies. So we know what has happened to various dissidents and renegades in Europe. Some kind of attacks with nerve agents, with uranium or radioactive material, plutonium.
[21:12]So you can see that the system per se is very brutal. And now the question is, what would happen if Putin wanted to relinquish power and get out of this spiral? Well, I don't see an option and unfortunately he doesn't seem to see an option either, or rather his further behaviour as the most advantageous for him. For whatever reason, I can't judge that, I can't look inside Putin's head or the people around him.
[21:41]So that's one issue, to say what is really rational. But I think the point you're making is right.
[21:54]
Putin's rational decisions
[21:51]There is often this cliché that we can't look inside Putin's head. But at least looking at Russia to see what is happening there and what has happened in the last 20 years can already achieve a lot and set the record straight about the rationalities that are spoken from a Russian perspective. And that also includes the 20 years of development in recent years. That would be enough to make it clear, okay, it would be a breach of logic to simply sit down at the negotiating table.
[22:20]But do all mediators have this cultural competence to actually put themselves in the shoes of the mediator and critically scrutinise the situation? And it's not just about asking what the cultural and political background is. I think you also have to understand Putin as a person very well. He is a former KGB intelligence officer. He is also trained in all these issues of dialogue and the like and certainly understands a lot about mediation.
[22:47]So I think you have to understand that again in this context, that he knows all these instruments. And because he knows them, he can also misuse them. And you can see it again and again in the topics. He always pretends and says, yes, let's negotiate, let's meet in Turkey. Then he doesn't come, then he sends negotiators who ultimately have nothing to say. So you can see that he plays with this instrument very actively and with great conviction. There are enough people who keep saying, yes, Putin did want to negotiate. And then there's the more extreme narrative and there are people who say, yes, Putin was willing to negotiate, but then Zelensky or the Americans or some wild, abstruse theories that come up that don't correspond to reality at all. And that is also a goal that Putin certainly wants to achieve in some political milieus, to plant certain narratives that then weaken Western societies, weaken the coalition within society. And that is certainly one of the political or intelligence goals that Russian actors and possibly also Chinese actors are trying to achieve in other contexts.
[24:01]Perhaps the point again that mediation can also be exploited and therefore a dark side or a dark side of this process, this offer can also be exploited by third parties or even by a party to the conflict. And we have to deal with a lot of publicity and opinion-forming and majority-building in social processes anyway. This is not a three-person event. But I think that really is a point that needs to be considered. Absolutely. This whole issue of mediation is also a democratic process, to a certain extent. That's how politics works. You said that it's a democratic process, in other words that majorities, so to speak, decide whether mediation takes place at all and not in an ad hoc situation, but as part of a longer process. Where do you see the danger or the realised danger that the mediator's will to mediate can be exploited and what do you simply have to pay attention to as a mediator, as a person willing to mediate?
[25:13]
The will to peace
[25:13]Yes, as I said, I believe that the first thing that can be exploited is the will for peace per se. So that's a noble, noble goal that everyone actually pursues and desires. And I think there are a lot of people who believe, as you have already mentioned, that if it doesn't work now, then we have to try even harder and try even harder. And there's this whole discussion along the lines that we simply have to try even more diplomacy in this context. The SPD manifesto is an example of this. And you simply have to realise that all Western states have ambassadors in Russia who are constantly making diplomatic attempts to help negotiate prisoner exchanges, which then happen and are successful.
[25:59]Let's remember the grain agreement here too. You can see that there are always successes. But as I said, the actual great success that leads to peace does not exist. And as I said, I believe it is simply this exploitation of perhaps a certain naivety, of a certain group of people. And you also mentioned the manifesto. But of course there are also other interests behind it. So there was Mr Stegnern's trip to Baku. It wasn't just SPD members who were there, there were also members of the CDU who somehow hoped that we could return to the status quo ante and do business as before. This is where interests intermingle and this can be exploited to an even greater extent by combining different interest groups and then saving them for your own activities. And in the end, I think you also have to understand that, as I said, the other side determines what is done. And I think that's why they use these activities to play off different social groups and political parties against each other. I think you have to realise that this works relatively well.
[27:07]Perhaps another question in this context, again from your perspective. Formally speaking, Russia is attacking Ukraine. Germany is not affected at all with buffers. There are of course connecting lines, the Baltic Fleet and the shadow fleet, then Nord Stream and so on. Of course we are somehow involved, but if there are calls for mediation and that we need to become active, how do you see the role that Germany should play, or could play, or should not play, as a mediating state between these two warring parties? From my perspective, we are involved in the war and not just standing by neutrally. I believe that, from my personal point of view, the role that Germany should play should not initially be in the direction of Russia or Ukraine. As I have already mentioned in detail, I think the Ukrainians know very well what they are doing.
[28:09]And the Russians, Putin, so to speak, certainly know very well what he is doing, or at least thinks he does, and doesn't seem to want to be taken in. I believe that the most important role that Germany could actually play in the area of mediation, especially against the background of the increasing isolation of the USA, the self-isolation of the USA, is actually all European players, stakeholders, interested parties, i.e. a Commission of the Willing form, which on the one hand compensates for the USA or the choice of the USA. And yes, as I said, the European forces are joining forces on the one hand to support Ukraine, so that Ukraine is also increasingly in its position of strength.
[28:59]Russia and then, if serious negotiations actually take place at some point, support them. And I believe that this is the second point where Germany should be involved, also in the mediation process, that there should be a greater focus on consolidating and integrating the European armaments and defence effort, because at the end of the day the European states, taken individually or extrapolated as a whole, are spending many times more than Russia on defence. But that is not really efficient. And I think we should do much more in this area. And more could be done. And I think that would be the lever where we say we need to start with mediation.
[29:41]Moving forward with diplomacy. This is not classic peace mediation. But the goal is peace. I believe that we also have to recognise in Europe that the peace that prevailed in Europe from 1945 to 2014, or whenever you want to call it, essentially came about from a position of strength, from a position of military strength through NATO, I believe that is beyond question, but also from economic and political strength through NATO, the European Union and all its predecessor organisations. And I believe that this coalition within the European Union or the
[30:29]
Germany's role in mediation
[30:25]European member states within NATO is currently very much at risk. As I said, my wish would be for Germany to become much more involved in this, to put it back on the right track, to put it back where I believe it belongs. In other words, a stronger Europe down and also clearly ensure that other countries are always welcome. So if the USA says again that it wants to open up more to Europe, then we should do that. And if other countries also say, yes, we want to join the European Union or NATO, then we should also make mythical efforts to make this possible. And I don't think that's a direct route for the editorial team.
[31:10]But in the absence of other options, as I said, I don't see any other options right now.
[31:18]It is easily the more efficient way. So a certain amount of advice and powerlessness in the face of war or parties that simply rely on violent power and play it off, mediation is really powerless and helpless at first, but the context of this outbreak of violence, which also has to do with the fact that the West was perceived as weak, NATO as brain dead and Trump as an ambivalent leader in the free world. He is always good for surprises and hope dies last. But that was one of the reasons why this war broke out. And in this respect, I think it's an interesting thought, it's absolutely time for mediation and diplomacy. But it is not aimed at Russia-Ukraine, but at the environment of this conflict. And I think that's a very clever idea, which is actually not at all foreign to conflict counsellors and mediators, but is very, very classic, but is played out far too little in the discussion. I think it's a natural development. You first try to pounce on the problem and then forget that life can't be solved right now.
[32:43]Clear said, Putin wants it not, with the Means goes it not and there must one look, where can I around it me positive impact and I believe, there gives it more as enough to do and in this respect would be the then beautiful,
[32:59]
Conclusion and outlook
[32:57]when one itself then focussed. Mr Jan-Uwe Pettke, many Thanks to for the Conversation.
[33:05]Summarising exists much Labour for also Peace mediators, not only for Mediators, also for Peace mediators, But about the Direction of impact and about the Recognition from Realities applies it on the one or other Place for the one or other not only Mediator possibly but again to think about. Many Thanks to for the Insights from outside, when I the so say may. Many Thanks to for the Conversation. Good Time for You and then Certainly and hopefully also again a next Times. I would me look forward to. Dr. Weigel, everything Good. Likewise, Mr Pettke, ciao.
[33:43]The was my Conversation with Jan-Uwe Pettke, Safety officer in one for Cybersecurity responsible Company and interested from security policy Perspective with much Experience both.
[34:00]In Respect from War operations, Bundeswehr missions, as also in his volunteers Tasks with this Topic.
[34:10]With the I about Peace mediation as Instrument spoken have and for me especially interesting was even also the Perspective from Non-mediators in one Labour and Field of action, in the Peace mediation active is, but even also with many other Professions to do has. And there Influence takes, at least take wants. And the Core realisation next to the whole classic Questions the Suitability and the General conditions from Mediation was then but here the Topic, the Direction of impact from diplomatic endeavours and also conflict management Mediation applies it to align, at least in the public Perception and the Directions of discussion in the Context and in view of this war, there even a unifying Europe to design and the common Reaction, the common Politics on it also to vote, what with many Conflicts goes hand in hand, the even also processed become want. As far as from mine Page this Paint to one not unusual Topic. So wants I the understood know in the Podcast here good through the Time. In Times, the for many better be could, at the times whole mild to say.
[35:33]Likes I this Topic also in The future more here record, because I believe, that the for the Self-image from us Mediators and also from our Professionalism and also in the Perception from Mediation and Mediators Important appears. And therefore becomes it in addition also more Episodes in the Course the next Months give. Many Thanks to, that you until here belongs to have and switched on have the Podcast good through the Time. Say with pleasure yours Colleagues and Friends Notification, that here to Mediation, Conflict management, Coaching, Organisational consulting podcasted becomes. Leave behind with pleasure a Feedback. The may natural also more critical Kind be, so that also other, the this Podcast still not know, him Find and itself one Impression procure can, what about it here goes. For the Moment thank you I me with you and with you all. Comes good through the Time.
[36:33] Music
Leave A Comment